You claiming " eu1 is pretty damn populated" just isnt right. Subscribers is at a record low and it is keep falling.

Aventurine need to get alot more content into the game and players need to stop zerging and sitting inside their zap tower cities.

Whilst I also claim that, those are direct quotes from people who PLAY. Clan activity has increased dramatically in most clans, ofcourse there a few clans who are naturally disbanding but their members go elsewhere.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by GreymoorThe current consensus of those playing EU atleast is that the population is increasing and activity is the highest it's been for a long time now. Not taking into account the standard drop in subs after the first month.

Players that been playing from start say that game is loosing subscribers in a record time, way faster then the decrease we saw in DF1.

Did you even read the thread i was reffering too?

Guilds like Zerg Mercs that had 700 active from start now have less then 100, Sun have lost most of their players and so have all other guilds. I have no clue whatsoever where you get your numbers from that inform us that the game is increasing it subscriber numbers? It's just not true.

ZM recruited every new players they saw and had a crap ton of alts. A lot of newer players leave and they never clean their roster. Ofcourse there's a lot of inactives in ZM. Where are these quotes you're basing your opinion from?

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by GroovyFlower

Originally posted by Aragon100

You can take pretty much all clans on EU, with a few exceptions, and you find this kind of behaviour. Guilds zerg up and sit inside their zaptower cities looking at each other. Doing just about nothing that would add some flavor to PvP and add some fun ingame.

And god forbid if anyone break this "safezone" gameplay and siege during primetime hours! Then the zergs get together and with pure numbers set the agenda of continuing this safezone gameplay.

A good example is Pandora that lost their city in a prime time siege (standard for EU is off-hour sieges) even though they were 2:1 up against The Blackhand Order and Liandrii (2 guilds that actually have some balls). Pandora then resieged after getting SUN and KDS together with Friendly Fire, Red Army to join them to get a whopping 6:1 advantage.

That could some call politics but i call it pure lameness and a game where numbers mean just about everything and player skill mean very little.

This kind of behavior tell us alot about the "safezone" mentality that even the self-preclaimed "hardcore" guilds practice when it comes to reality. Talking big wont change this.

Some could claim game is boring cause there is so little content, which it is, but why then Zerg jump the clans that try to bring some fun to the game?

Here is a thread that describe the lameness of DFUW EU sieges pretty well -

And here we have 2 good examples of what type of PvP these Zergs (Lux Arcana and SUN in this case) prefer, they call it events inside their city limit where they all are binded and with full access to guildbanks for fast reequipping, just amazing -

Why not take a hundred of your guild/alliance mates out of your zap tower cities and actually do something? Or would it be to few?

Lol this not new when Darkfall 1 was in beta you had no towers and clan towns had no gates they where open AS IT SHOULD BE in full open free for all pvp MMO like in Asherons call Darktide.

There should be no bloody safezones at all in game types like this.

We already dicussed this early years before launch 2003-2006 then suddenly the whole attitude of gamers in general and even hardcore gamers changed and more and more opt for protection zones or ways that starters and small clans would be safe somehow and the IDIOTIC ZAPTOWERS where born.

2008 it went from avarage whining to insane whining game should be more safe agains gankers/pk.

Many discussion also about all race clans.

Darkfall was at that point already lost a carebear game in the making.

First few months after launch where one big ZERGFEST.

Then came the AFK/MACRO/EXPLOITING(bloodwalling) and devlopers listend to the pansy whiners who want a more safe game gates where implemented and more towers.

I already with few others from AC-Darktide always try convince devs and community to go all red server no safezones no towers let the players make up the rule set not the game.

By now we know what happend more macroing more exploiting and clans sitting with there viginas getting catching sand in there protected clantowns, result gameworld empty.

DFUW is result of PANSY'S continuing ZERG and safezones plus more easy gameplay and girlycolored themepark UI

Thats why i dont play DFUW and play the much more pure hardcore game DayZ.

I agree to the fullest. DFUW is today a carebear game where numbers is all that count. Worst zerg game ever.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by GroovyFlower

Originally posted by Aragon100

You can take pretty much all clans on EU, with a few exceptions, and you find this kind of behaviour. Guilds zerg up and sit inside their zaptower cities looking at each other. Doing just about nothing that would add some flavor to PvP and add some fun ingame.

And god forbid if anyone break this "safezone" gameplay and siege during primetime hours! Then the zergs get together and with pure numbers set the agenda of continuing this safezone gameplay.

A good example is Pandora that lost their city in a prime time siege (standard for EU is off-hour sieges) even though they were 2:1 up against The Blackhand Order and Liandrii (2 guilds that actually have some balls). Pandora then resieged after getting SUN and KDS together with Friendly Fire, Red Army to join them to get a whopping 6:1 advantage.

That could some call politics but i call it pure lameness and a game where numbers mean just about everything and player skill mean very little.

This kind of behavior tell us alot about the "safezone" mentality that even the self-preclaimed "hardcore" guilds practice when it comes to reality. Talking big wont change this.

Some could claim game is boring cause there is so little content, which it is, but why then Zerg jump the clans that try to bring some fun to the game?

Here is a thread that describe the lameness of DFUW EU sieges pretty well -

And here we have 2 good examples of what type of PvP these Zergs (Lux Arcana and SUN in this case) prefer, they call it events inside their city limit where they all are binded and with full access to guildbanks for fast reequipping, just amazing -

Why not take a hundred of your guild/alliance mates out of your zap tower cities and actually do something? Or would it be to few?

Lol this not new when Darkfall 1 was in beta you had no towers and clan towns had no gates they where open AS IT SHOULD BE in full open free for all pvp MMO like in Asherons call Darktide.

There should be no bloody safezones at all in game types like this.

We already dicussed this early years before launch 2003-2006 then suddenly the whole attitude of gamers in general and even hardcore gamers changed and more and more opt for protection zones or ways that starters and small clans would be safe somehow and the IDIOTIC ZAPTOWERS where born.

2008 it went from avarage whining to insane whining game should be more safe agains gankers/pk.

Many discussion also about all race clans.

Darkfall was at that point already lost a carebear game in the making.

First few months after launch where one big ZERGFEST.

Then came the AFK/MACRO/EXPLOITING(bloodwalling) and devlopers listend to the pansy whiners who want a more safe game gates where implemented and more towers.

I already with few others from AC-Darktide always try convince devs and community to go all red server no safezones no towers let the players make up the rule set not the game.

By now we know what happend more macroing more exploiting and clans sitting with there viginas getting catching sand in there protected clantowns, result gameworld empty.

DFUW is result of PANSY'S continuing ZERG and safezones plus more easy gameplay and girlycolored themepark UI

Thats why i dont play DFUW and play the much more pure hardcore game DayZ.

I agree to the fullest. DFUW is today a carebear game where numbers is all that count. Worst zerg game ever.

You claiming " eu1 is pretty damn populated" just isnt right. Subscribers is at a record low and it is keep falling.

Aventurine need to get alot more content into the game and players need to stop zerging and sitting inside their zap tower cities.

Whilst I also claim that, those are direct quotes from people who PLAY. Clan activity has increased dramatically in most clans, ofcourse there a few clans who are naturally disbanding but their members go elsewhere.

Do you even play the game? Why i wonder is cause noone in any guild i talked to claim that their active numbers increased last months. On the contrary the active members have dropped from 30% to 90% in every guild on EU1.

Can you even find 1 guild that increased their active guildmember numbers?

The information that can be found on forums and ingame is that the EU1 is loosing active guildplayers in a steady increasing way.

Guilds naturally disbanding you say. They dont go anywhere else cause what they do is ending their subscriptions, that is where most of these players gone, not to other guilds.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Greymoor

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by GroovyFlower

Originally posted by Aragon100

You can take pretty much all clans on EU, with a few exceptions, and you find this kind of behaviour. Guilds zerg up and sit inside their zaptower cities looking at each other. Doing just about nothing that would add some flavor to PvP and add some fun ingame.

And god forbid if anyone break this "safezone" gameplay and siege during primetime hours! Then the zergs get together and with pure numbers set the agenda of continuing this safezone gameplay.

A good example is Pandora that lost their city in a prime time siege (standard for EU is off-hour sieges) even though they were 2:1 up against The Blackhand Order and Liandrii (2 guilds that actually have some balls). Pandora then resieged after getting SUN and KDS together with Friendly Fire, Red Army to join them to get a whopping 6:1 advantage.

That could some call politics but i call it pure lameness and a game where numbers mean just about everything and player skill mean very little.

This kind of behavior tell us alot about the "safezone" mentality that even the self-preclaimed "hardcore" guilds practice when it comes to reality. Talking big wont change this.

Some could claim game is boring cause there is so little content, which it is, but why then Zerg jump the clans that try to bring some fun to the game?

Here is a thread that describe the lameness of DFUW EU sieges pretty well -

And here we have 2 good examples of what type of PvP these Zergs (Lux Arcana and SUN in this case) prefer, they call it events inside their city limit where they all are binded and with full access to guildbanks for fast reequipping, just amazing -

Why not take a hundred of your guild/alliance mates out of your zap tower cities and actually do something? Or would it be to few?

Lol this not new when Darkfall 1 was in beta you had no towers and clan towns had no gates they where open AS IT SHOULD BE in full open free for all pvp MMO like in Asherons call Darktide.

There should be no bloody safezones at all in game types like this.

We already dicussed this early years before launch 2003-2006 then suddenly the whole attitude of gamers in general and even hardcore gamers changed and more and more opt for protection zones or ways that starters and small clans would be safe somehow and the IDIOTIC ZAPTOWERS where born.

2008 it went from avarage whining to insane whining game should be more safe agains gankers/pk.

Many discussion also about all race clans.

Darkfall was at that point already lost a carebear game in the making.

First few months after launch where one big ZERGFEST.

Then came the AFK/MACRO/EXPLOITING(bloodwalling) and devlopers listend to the pansy whiners who want a more safe game gates where implemented and more towers.

I already with few others from AC-Darktide always try convince devs and community to go all red server no safezones no towers let the players make up the rule set not the game.

By now we know what happend more macroing more exploiting and clans sitting with there viginas getting catching sand in there protected clantowns, result gameworld empty.

DFUW is result of PANSY'S continuing ZERG and safezones plus more easy gameplay and girlycolored themepark UI

Thats why i dont play DFUW and play the much more pure hardcore game DayZ.

I agree to the fullest. DFUW is today a carebear game where numbers is all that count. Worst zerg game ever.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by ChrisboxHas nothing to do with mentality, there is so sandbox or clan politics in this game therefore all there is to do is mindlessly slay. Hence why its never going to be a large title.

It have alot to do with mentality. DFUW have a playerbase that feel the need to hold hands in a way that never existed in for example a game like old UO.

In UO players had balls and didnt zerg, in DFUW it's just about all these selfproclaimed "hardcore" PvP players do.

Sure it also comes down to content and game mechanics but DFUW is in many ways way more carebear then old UO was and so is the playerbase.

Report this post

Want small group pvp then ho out in a small group and hit mob spawns, host or participate in player run tournaments.

This isn't 1.0 where an inactive 10 man clan can own multiple holdings, and that is a good thing.

DF was always suppose to be about massive pvp battles for holdings, saying it wasn't is delusional.

Also, this isn't themepark zerging where everyone focus fires and insta kills people one at a time in a massive zerg. Go watch the siege videos on youtube.

Sieges is all about numbers and there is no strategy needed if you have rallied half the server to fight for you.

Most sieges on EU1 have been sieges where numbers are all that matters.

And politics matter very little if zergs decide to co-op instead of fighting each other.

I suggest you read up abit on how EU sieging worked out so far.

You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.

Having lots of people can only go so far.

as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.

Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.

Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.

And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.

If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)

again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.

Want small group pvp then ho out in a small group and hit mob spawns, host or participate in player run tournaments.

This isn't 1.0 where an inactive 10 man clan can own multiple holdings, and that is a good thing.

DF was always suppose to be about massive pvp battles for holdings, saying it wasn't is delusional.

Also, this isn't themepark zerging where everyone focus fires and insta kills people one at a time in a massive zerg. Go watch the siege videos on youtube.

Sieges is all about numbers and there is no strategy needed if you have rallied half the server to fight for you.

Most sieges on EU1 have been sieges where numbers are all that matters.

And politics matter very little if zergs decide to co-op instead of fighting each other.

I suggest you read up abit on how EU sieging worked out so far.

You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.

Having lots of people can only go so far.

as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.

Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.

Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.

And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.

If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)

again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.

Being a zerg with hired mercs that perform well cause they're good at what they do is not adding as a huge disadvantage as you claim. A zerg can perform well since DFUW is such a zerg friendly game. With good communication in for example 10 small teamspeak groups, which is not that hard to add in today gaming, leaders will have a pretty easy way controlling any fight. Numbers matters and they matters alot.

Outnumbering all from 2vs1 to 6vs1 as most of the EU sieges, is all that it takes especially if you're defending your own bindstone. DFUW is a game where all you need is hire mercs so you have a good number advantage and if defending with these ridicolous zap towers you can just sit back and have a coke during the siege. It's more or less a walk in the park.

You're putting to much nonsense into the DFUW strategics, defenders dont need to even try attacking the siegestones if they have enough numbers defending.

And yes i see you have no idea on how EU zergs works, they fight together instead of against each other, pure lameness and a mentality of carebears. That is what the so called "hardcore" PvP game DFUW have become on EU. Politics mean just about nothing when 75% of the server population hold hands. If NA is better then i congratulate you.

Want small group pvp then ho out in a small group and hit mob spawns, host or participate in player run tournaments.

This isn't 1.0 where an inactive 10 man clan can own multiple holdings, and that is a good thing.

DF was always suppose to be about massive pvp battles for holdings, saying it wasn't is delusional.

Also, this isn't themepark zerging where everyone focus fires and insta kills people one at a time in a massive zerg. Go watch the siege videos on youtube.

Sieges is all about numbers and there is no strategy needed if you have rallied half the server to fight for you.

Most sieges on EU1 have been sieges where numbers are all that matters.

And politics matter very little if zergs decide to co-op instead of fighting each other.

I suggest you read up abit on how EU sieging worked out so far.

You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.

Having lots of people can only go so far.

as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.

Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.

Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.

And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.

If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)

again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.

Being a zerg with hired mercs that perform well cause they're good at what they do is not adding as a huge disadvantage as you claim. A zerg can perform well since DFUW is such a zerg friendly game. With good communication in for example 10 small teamspeak groups, which is not that hard to add in today gaming, leaders will have a pretty easy way controlling any fight. Numbers matters and they matters alot.

Outnumbering all from 2vs1 to 6vs1 as most of the EU sieges, is all that it takes especially if you're defending your own bindstone. DFUW is a game where all you need is hire mercs so you have a good number advantage and if defending with these ridicolous zap towers you can just sit back and have a coke during the siege. It's more or less a walk in the park.

You're putting to much nonsense into the DFUW strategics, defenders dont need to even try attacking the siegestones if they have enough numbers defending.

And yes i see you have no idea on how EU zergs works, they fight together instead of against each other, pure lameness and a mentality of carebears. That is what the so called "hardcore" PvP game DFUW have become on EU. Politics mean just about nothing when 75% of the server population hold hands. If NA is better then i congratulate you.

Well then, I guess it sucks to be on the EU server. Didn't you have the same issue in 1.0

Want small group pvp then ho out in a small group and hit mob spawns, host or participate in player run tournaments.

This isn't 1.0 where an inactive 10 man clan can own multiple holdings, and that is a good thing.

DF was always suppose to be about massive pvp battles for holdings, saying it wasn't is delusional.

Also, this isn't themepark zerging where everyone focus fires and insta kills people one at a time in a massive zerg. Go watch the siege videos on youtube.

Sieges is all about numbers and there is no strategy needed if you have rallied half the server to fight for you.

Most sieges on EU1 have been sieges where numbers are all that matters.

And politics matter very little if zergs decide to co-op instead of fighting each other.

I suggest you read up abit on how EU sieging worked out so far.

You are crazy if you think an unorganized huge zergs vs a small more organized siege force fighting as a team will win.

Having lots of people can only go so far.

as for no strategy, well politics is very heavy in strategy. As well as how you fight, where you fight, siege stone placement.

Your analysis of sieges being zerg mechanics is an extremely simplistic look at siege warfare.

Not sure whats going on over on the EU server but on the NA server you cant expect to win a siege by having 200 player run around with no direction, no strategy on siege stone placement or siege stone defence/attack. You wont do very well sieging as a mindless zerg, theres too much room for strategy by smaller forces working as a team for this to even be remotely true.

And just to highlight the derpyness of this "omg zerg" mentality, we once won a siege because we zerged...we only had 20 more people and the reason that extra 20 mattered is because we had them come in after the fighting had started. It was a mix of politics and strategy. Once we got to the siege stones as a big siege force we had the 20 man team of well geared players rush in, the enemy was scatterd and fell quick.

If the enemy hadn't split and scatterd it very well would have become another outcome. We also brought boats just in case, they chose not to utilize boats so part of our force didn't even engage (nullifying our 20 man advantage but that's ok lets still call it a zerg winning)

again you have a VERY simplistic look at sieges to even think this way. its no wonder you probably think this way, you very well might have been on a losing side because you lacked strategy, organization, and talent...its easier to cry zerg than to admit getting bested. This is the same mentality that called our winning side a zerg because in total we had a mere 20 man advantage. I could see a case for zerg mechanics having the advantage if the other side has 2 to 1 number advantage, but if that's the case you've already lost the politics game.

Being a zerg with hired mercs that perform well cause they're good at what they do is not adding as a huge disadvantage as you claim. A zerg can perform well since DFUW is such a zerg friendly game. With good communication in for example 10 small teamspeak groups, which is not that hard to add in today gaming, leaders will have a pretty easy way controlling any fight. Numbers matters and they matters alot.

Outnumbering all from 2vs1 to 6vs1 as most of the EU sieges, is all that it takes especially if you're defending your own bindstone. DFUW is a game where all you need is hire mercs so you have a good number advantage and if defending with these ridicolous zap towers you can just sit back and have a coke during the siege. It's more or less a walk in the park.

You're putting to much nonsense into the DFUW strategics, defenders dont need to even try attacking the siegestones if they have enough numbers defending.

And yes i see you have no idea on how EU zergs works, they fight together instead of against each other, pure lameness and a mentality of carebears. That is what the so called "hardcore" PvP game DFUW have become on EU. Politics mean just about nothing when 75% of the server population hold hands. If NA is better then i congratulate you.

Well then, I guess it sucks to be on the EU server. Didn't you have the same issue in 1.0